WHEN police were called to reports of human remains found on a river bank they prepared themselves for a grim murder investigation.
But their CSI-style detective work has deepened the mystery – and questioned whether Captain Cook really was the first white man to set foot on the east coast of Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/human-skull-found-in-manning-river-casts-doubt-over-claims-captain-cook-was-first-to-the-east-coast-of-australia/story-e6frg6n6-1226672230477

Your thread title needs a big fat question mark at the end of it.

There have always been adventurers exploring new lands, the whalers certainly got around as did others seeking fame and fortune. Official government expeditions however are well documented and will always override tales of adventure.

> Official government expeditions however are well documented and will always override tales of adventure.

Even when the government is that of Java, Sumatra, the Maldives, or Fiji?

mollwollfumble said:

> Official government expeditions however are well documented and will always override tales of adventure.

Even when the government is that of Java, Sumatra, the Maldives, or Fiji?

Was referring to European exploration as that is the subject of this thread.

“It’s fascinating,” Dr Stewart Fallon, of Australian National University, said. “Using carbon dating on bone fragment and looking at enamel from a tooth, there are two possible time periods from when the person was around.”

Dr Fallon said the first period would mean the male was born between 1650 and 1660 and died 40 to 50 years later. “The second period suggests the skull belongs to someone born anywhere from 1780 to 1790 and died between 1805 and 1810.“But he said his data suggested there was an 80 per cent chance the skull came from the mid-17th century.

Nothing to see here.

Soso said:

“It’s fascinating,” Dr Stewart Fallon, of Australian National University, said. “Using carbon dating on bone fragment and looking at enamel from a tooth, there are two possible time periods from when the person was around.”

Dr Fallon said the first period would mean the male was born between 1650 and 1660 and died 40 to 50 years later. “The second period suggests the skull belongs to someone born anywhere from 1780 to 1790 and died between 1805 and 1810.“But he said his data suggested there was an 80 per cent chance the skull came from the mid-17th century.

Nothing to see here.

It made the news and we saw it. Therefore are awaiting truth to surface.

Nothing is mentioned about Leif Ericson’s death in the sagas—he probably died in Greenland some time between these dates. Nothing further is known about Leif’s family beyond the succession of Thorkell as chieftain.

Vikings.

Definitely Vikings.

They bin everywhere.

“The carbon dating results put the skull – dubbed Taree – as being from two time periods, the 1600s or late 1700s.”

It would certainly be good to see this article rewritten for a scientifically literate audience.